One
of the most fundamental issues concerning the formation of society, government,
and federations is the lines of individual freedom verses government power.
For the States and United States, there are no two philosophical schools
of thought more influential on this matter than the philosophies of the
Enlightenment period and Georg Hegel. As shown in Part
1, the United States was emphatically founded on Enlightenment philosophy;
but in the late 1800s, Hegel’s philosophy greatly influenced and
controlled the minds and actions of American law, politics, and education.
However, the two philosophies are hardly compatible and form completely
different structures of governance. When both are used by American politicians,
collision is inevitable.

Hegel
Philosophy

According
to Hegel, the existence of “freedom” has its foundation in
the “origin in the will” (Georg Hegel, Philosophy of Right,
Ed. University of Chicago, Trnsl. T.M. Knox, [Encyclopedia Britannica,
Oxford University Press, 1952], 12). The will goes through a process leading
to self-consciousness; thus, to “posit any content in himself by
his own effort” (13). Hegel calls the destination of this process
“individuality” (14). From this individuality, the will creates
specific determinations and seeks to realize them (15). In short, the
individual attempts to accomplish in real life what his will desires.

Hegel
claims that for the individual to objectify his will, his subjective determinations
must be made “universal” through an objective forum (17-18),
or else, his will remains in a non-rational condition—like an animal.
Hegel says, “the absolute goal…of free mind is to make its
freedom its object, i.e. to make freedom objective as much in the sense
that freedom shall be the rational system of mind, as in the sense that
this system shall be the world of immediate actuality” (18). In
a word, subjective freedom must have a rational method through which to
objectify or make real his freedom. Hegel calls this kind of freedom,
Moral Freedom, Idea of Freedom, and Ethical Life.

Hegel
determines that this individual realizes this moral freedom through the
State. Hegel says, “[t]he State is the actuality of the ethical
Idea.” (80). To Hegel, the State is the only means through which
individual freedom has any objectivity in individual freedom. He reasons
in this manner, “Whoever wills to act in this world of actuality
has eo ipso [by the thing itself] submitted himself to its laws
and recognized the right of objectivity…In this objective field,
the right of [objective] insight is valid as insight into the legal or
illegal” (46). Hegel further reasons, “the nature of man consists
precisely in the fact that he is essentially something universal, not
a being whose knowledge is an abstractly momentary and piecemeal affair”
(Ibid). Hegel means, exercising objective Moral Freedom is only
accomplished by complying with the laws of the State.

Hegel
sets forth premises to justify his position regarding “objective
freedom”, stating, “the origin of evil in general is to be
found in the mystery of [individual] freedom” (48). In other words,
evil arises out of the subjective will without the State’s laws
to determine whether those actions comply with objective freedom (i.e.
legal or illegal). All individual freedom without the State amounts to
irrationality, absurdity, and contradiction. In particular, Hegel is extremely
sensitive about people in society who might claim their actions comport
to a higher law than man’s law (i.e. natural and divine law). In
mocking these positions, Hegel touts, “You actually accept a law…and
respect it as absolute. So do I, but I go further than you, because I
am beyond this law and can make it to suit myself” (54). Of course,
this higher law Hegel mocks is the same law upon which the Enlightenment
philosophy is based—the foundation of American jurisprudence.

Hegel’s
disdain for the Enlightenment philosophy is clear when he states in part,
“this babble has made reasonable men just as sick of the words ‘reason,’
‘enlightenment,’ and ‘right,’ &c., as of the
words ‘constitution’ and ‘freedom’.” Hegel
believes the Enlightenment philosophy is incredible because it is based
upon reason and logic, and not upon the “concept of the State.”
Hegel presupposes that since logic is based upon interpretations deduced
by human mind, logic will interfere with the concept of the State, which
is to objectify subjective freedom. Thus, Hegel believes the Enlightenment
philosophy of America’s independence is not only unreasonable and
contradictory, but evil because logic cannot and must not get in the way
of the “concept of the State.”

To prevent
this “evil” in society where people claim a higher law than
man’s law, thus abusing their freedom, Hegel concludes, “the
ethical order is freedom or the absolute will as what is objective,
a circle of necessity whose moments are the ethical powers which regulate
the life of individuals” (55, emphasis added). “Ethical freedom”
is the STATE, to determine all objective freedom for the individual. Notice
as well that Hegel equates “freedom” with the “absolute
will” of the State. Thus, to a Hegelian, society is free where the
State has absolute control over individuals.

Hegel
further states, the State’s power “is an absolute authority
and power infinitely more firmly established than the being in nature”
(55). Since the power of the State is absolute and its power is infinite,
it follows that “these laws and institutions are duties binding
on the will of the individual” regardless of logic, reason, and
the purposes and ends of society and government (56). The STATE is the
end unto itself because only it is reality.

Advertisement

Even
more than the individual having a duty to submit to this absolute State
authority, Hegel declares that the individual’s destiny “is
fulfilled when they belong to an actual ethical order [i.e. State],
because their conviction of their freedom finds its truth in such an objective
order, and it is in an ethical order [i.e. State] that they are actually
in possession of their own essence or their own inner universality”
(57, emphasis added). Hegel means, an individual is destined to be a subject
of a State and his essence as a human is fulfilled by being subject to
the absolute will of the State. Upon these premises, Hegel ultimately
finds that individual rights are found not in nature or God, but in the
State. He says, “by being in the ethical order [i.e. State] a man
has rights” (57).

Hegel
finds that individuals are completely inferior to the State in all regards:
in life, liberty, and property. A “patriot” of the State is
one who sees his interests as subservient to the interests of the State;
he must act in accordance with all state laws and institutions. Hegel
says,

“[a]s
the substance of the individual subject, it is his political sentiment
[patriotism];…as the substance of the objective world, it is the
organism of the state. The political sentiment, patriotism pure and simple,
is assured conviction with truth as its basis…In this sense it is
simply a product of the institutions subsisting in the state, since rationality
is actually present in the state, while action in conformity
with these institutions gives rationality its practical proof.”
(84, brackets not added).

Clearly
stated, Hegel determines that patriotism equates to obedience to the State
in all regards. More than a person being patriotic by recognizing his
objective freedom through the State, the individual must sacrifice
his life, liberty, and property to and for the State. Hegel determines,
“[the individual’s] relation [to the State] and the recognition
of it is therefore the individual’s substantive duty, the duty to
maintain this substantive individuality, i.e. the independence and sovereignty
of the state, at the risk and the sacrifice of property and life”
(107). Hegel further states that “[s]acrifice on behalf of the individuality
of the state is the substantial tie between the state and all its members
and so is a universal duty.” (107). Were a person to invoke natural
rights granted by God to protect his life, liberty, and property against
the State, or were a person to even question the actions or authority
of government, Hegel would find that person to be ipso facto
unpatriotic.

Quite
clearly, under Hegel’s philosophy, the State is absolutely and infinitely
supreme; and the individual has a duty to sacrifice his life and property
for the State because the individuals’ “objective freedom”
cannot exist except by the State. The individual exists for the State;
not the State for the individual. This duty to sacrifice one’s life,
liberty, and property for the State is universal in time and conditions
regardless of whether the State is in a state of war or peace and regardless
of constitution. If the State requires the sacrifice, the individual must
make the sacrifice; and the State is the sole determiner of its own needs.
Put inversely, the State is the sole determiner of which individuals need
to sacrifice for the State; and this determination has nothing to do with
reason or logic, but only with the “concept of the State.”

By Hegel’s
own admission, these ideas contrast sharply to the ones which founded
and birthed the United States of America and its constitutions: the Enlightenment
Period.

Enlightenment
Philosophy

The
American Declaration of Independence mirrors Enlightenment philosophy.
Even someone who is only vaguely familiar with the Declaration would recognize
its principles are incompatible with Hegel’s philosophy. The Declaration
recognizes the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Hegel recognizes no such right. In the Declaration, the State is not the
method of obtaining objectivity of freedom, but is the protector of freedom
and is ultimately under the control of the people for whose benefit it
was created.

These
concepts were specifically advanced by Enlightenment philosophy and were
described as immutable. Samuel Pufendorf says, “the fundamental
laws of nature [are] truth and necessity aris[ing] directly from the very
character of human nature; and [are] conclusions…deduced
from these principles” (Pufendorf, Two Books of the Elements
of Universal Jurisprudence, Ed. Knud Haakonssen, [Liberty Fund, Indianapolis,
IN, 2009], 218). Thus expressed in the Declaration, “We hold these
truths to be self-evident”. For the American colonies, the belief
that God judged the actions of mankind equipped them to secede from Great
Britain, given the truth of individual freedom and limitations of State
power.

To Hegel,
there was no “immutable truths” of right and wrong relative
to the State’s judgments and actions. There was only the power of
the State. To Hegel, the ultimate judge is not God, as the Declaration
declares (“the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our
intentions”). Rather, the “history of the world [is] the world’s
court of judgement” (Hegel, Philosophy of Right, 110).
As will be seen in this article’s subsequent parts, this Hegelian
concept of “history” has a fundamental bearing on how those
in political power control the State.

As a
fundamental premise of understanding human nature, society, and government,
John Locke explains that individual freedom is found in the laws of Nature
created by God. Individual freedom is a natural, inherit right granted
by the Creator of life and matter. He states that political power (i.e.
the State) is founded not upon the “concept of the State”
but rather upon this: “all men are naturally in…a state of
perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions
and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature”
(Locke, Concerning Civil Government, 25). Civil liberty was substantively
a matter of “life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the
possession of outward things such as money, houses, furniture, and the
like” (Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration, Ed. Charles
Sherman, [D. Appleton-Century Company, 1937], 3). It was a matter of individual
freedom. Thus, “no one ought to harm another in his life, health,
liberty or possessions” (John Locke, Concerning Civil Government,
Ed. Alexander Campbell Fraser, [Oxford University Press, 1952], 26). This
law of nature restricts government as well, for at least “they are
subject to the Divine sovereignty and the law of nature” (Samuel
Pufendorf, Two Books of the Elements of Universal Jurisprudence, 34).

Upon
the recognition that God created man, individual freedom contains the
right to use the grants of God for the individual’s benefit. Locke
states, “for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and
infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent
into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property,
whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not another’s
pleasure.” (Locke, Concerning Civil Government, 26). By
definition, the State is not the objective form of individual freedom.
Enlightenment philosophers acknowledged that the individual, as a workmanship
of God, is a moral being, answerable to God primarily and man secondarily.
This philosophy acknowledges that God equips individuals with certain
rights independent of society and government. The State is not the objectivity
of rights, as Hegel proposes. God is.

With
this individual freedom, God grants to him certain authority respective
of his rights. Samuel Pufendorf recognizes that “[a]uthority over
persons and actions which are one’s own is called liberty”
(Two Books on the Elements of Universal Jurisprudence, 89). Where
no individual authority exists, no individual liberty exists. Thus, were
individual freedom to exist only through the power of the State, no liberty
would exist at all; it would depend entirely on the State’s arbitrary
control or otherwise. To the Enlightenment, individual liberty is a matter
of individual ownership sanctioned by God and is not subject
to arbitrary control of the State.

Individual
freedom, or as referenced in philosophical terms, individual morality,
is something imposed upon individuals by God, not the State as Hegel proposes.
This individual morality and freedom exists independently of the State.
Samuel Pufendorf puts it this way, “[morality] does not derive its
origin from the arbitrary imposition of men [i.e. government], but only
from the disposition of God himself, who has so formed the nature of man
that particular actions of necessity are or are not congruent with this
nature” (Two Books of the Elements of Universal Jurisprudence,
24).

So,
while government may unjustly interfere with individual freedom, we suffer
only while evils are sufferable. At some point, individuals may invoke
their right and command of freedom and may do as the Declaration states,
“alter or — abolish it, and — institute new government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in
such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and
happiness.” Without the concept of individual freedom and rights,
there is hardly room for John Locke’s definition of tyranny: “tyranny
is the exercising of power beyond right” (Concerning Civil Government,
71). Of course, Hegel does not recognize such a definition of tyranny
because he does not recognize natural rights of the individual outside
of the power of the State. How can the State exceed powers when it is
the realization of the individual’s freedom?

This
concept of unilaterally executing individual freedom was not new. John
Locke stated it clearly in his works as noted in part 1 of this series.
Samuel Pufendorf stated the same thing before Thomas Jefferson, saying,
“since he to whom sovereignty is given possesses otherwise no right
over me, and therefore holds by my mere free will whatever authority he
has over me, it is assuredly patent that it rests with me how far I care
to admit his sovereignty over me” (Two Books on the Elements
of Universal Jurisprudence, 89). Were it not for the supremacy of
individual freedom, this right to change, abolish, or secede from government
would not be possible. Quite obviously, Enlightenment philosophy rejected
what Hegel advocated and placed significant value on the individual as
a creation of God with individual freedom.

Tragically,
from the late 1800s until today in America, many in the highest levels
of education and politics have adopted the principles advocated by Hegel.
Many of them have openly admitted this; others not so bold hide their
Hegelian beliefs in Enlightenment terminology. These Hegelians have largely
influenced the direction of constitutional law and political direction
of the United States. Even a shallow study would reveal this, and these
subsequent articles will reveal more of this truth.

As a
result, the United States has undergone a change in character to the point
that it is unrecognizable as the same country. Instead of wanting individual
freedom, many Americans prefer government intervention, management, and
control—just as Hegel (and Marx) envisioned—in contradiction
to foundationsl principles of constitutional republicanism and democracy.

Subscribe
to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter
Your E-Mail Address:

To return
to true American principles, citizens and their representatives must reject
the Hegelian supposition of State power and authority relative to individual
freedom, and once again place preeminence on the value of God’s
creation of the individual, who has the right to life, liberty, and pursuit
of happiness independent of government.

Furthermore,
we must question authority as it has been told to us. We must require
our agents to reconcile their positions of constitutional law and politics
with the fundamental notion of individual freedom. If their positions
do not reconcile with this fundament tenet of American jurisprudence and
philosophy, they may be a Hegelian in disguise.

Subsequent
articles are forthcoming on the remaining topics, and will be designed
to offer the political student with more tools to judge actions with philosophy.
For part one click below.

A.
Individual Freedom and State Supremacy (Part 2)B. Formation and Purpose of the StateC. Interpreting and Applying the ConstitutionD. Republicanism and DemocracyE. The People’s Right of RevolutionF. Religion/ChurchG. War

Timothy
Baldwin is an attorney licensed to practice law in Montana (and Florida)
and focuses on constitutional issues. Baldwin graduated from the University
of West Florida in 2001 with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in English
and Political Science. In 2004, Baldwin graduated from Cumberland School
of Law in Birmingham, AL with a Juris Doctorate (JD) degree. From there,
Baldwin became an Assistant State Attorney in Florida. For 2 1/2 years,
Baldwin prosecuted criminal actions and tried nearly 60 jury trials. In
2006, Baldwin started his private law practice and has maintained it since.

Hegel
finds that individuals are completely inferior to the State in all regards:
in life, liberty, and property. A “patriot” of the State is
one who sees his interests as subservient to the interests of the State;
he must act in accordance with all state laws and institutions.